SHILLONG: The High Court of Meghalaya has rejected the anticipatory bail applications of headman and secretary of Bakur village, Dawki, West Jaintia Hills who were allegedly involved in the assault and tonsuring of a woman recently.
During the hearing of the matter via video conferencing on Tuesday, the Judge, W Diengdoh, said that the anticipatory bail applications were filed by the headman Daniel Khongsit and secretary Donstan Khonglah after the sessions court in Jowai had rejected their pre-arrest bail application during the final hearing.
On June 4, the complainant Kashmir Dkhar had lodged an FIR with the officer-in-charge, Dawki police station stating that on May 31 around 3.35 pm while she was going out for walk, two women identified as Bobby Lamin and Jennyfer Sumer and the Bakur secretary accosted her and started assaulting her. Thereafter, they took her to Khasi Pnar school and again assaulted her and cut her hair with a scissor.
) The police, on receipt of the complaint, had registered a case.
Another FIR filed by the victim on June 6 alleged that after regaining memory, she remembered that it was the headman Khongsit who had ordered to torture her by cutting her hair and beat her on May 31.
She had also said that Khongsit had warned her not to name or file FIR against the other three accused.
During the hearing, the counsels for the headman and the secretary refuted the claim of the woman and said that there was no truth in the FIR and they brought counter allegations.
However, the court observed that the facts of the case would show that the headman was allegedly present on the day of the incident when the lady was assaulted and tonsured.
“In fact, as the headman of the village, he was said to be responsible for giving the order for the said assault and tonsure”, he court said.
The secretary of the village was also allegedly present and also took part in the assault of the complainant along with the other co-accused, Bobby Lamin and Jennyfer Sumer.
The court pointed out that the medical report showed that the complainant/victim was found with multiple signs of injuries on shoulder (right and left), lower limb and lower back with head being shaved and no alcohol intake.
This shows that something must have happened to the complainant, which would only corroborate the factuality of the incident, the court said.
“ Prima facie, it appears that the petitioners herein are involved in the incident and being responsible persons and leaders of the community, instead of referring the matter to the police, had taken part in an unlawful act to the detriment of the complainant”, the court said.
Ostracisation
According to the court, peculiar to the society in this part of the country, including the place of occurrence, the shaving of one’s head as a form of punishment or public reprimand has a deep rooted implication leading to a form of ostracisation and a symbol before the community of bearing an immoral character. “In the case in hand, the complainant, who has been subjected to such a treatment, has to bear the shame of such an action inflicted on her. Thus, her modesty has been outraged by such act,” the court said.
